Congress should slow the slide down ObamaCare’s slippery slope

Darn you, Charles Krauthammer. Why do you have to write what I was going to write just before I write and say it so much better than I ever would?

Take the lede on today’s column in the local newspaper, which is actually his Friday column in the Washington Post:

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given — say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans — you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.

But I’m getting hoarse from screaming at the TV and printed page over the reporting that millions will “lose” health insurance cover, when in reality many of those millions will be gladly “throwing” away that pathetic and nearly useless coverage due to sky high deductibles. (Never mind that the CBO estimates of the uninsured under RyanCare are probably just as inflated as its estimate of the newly insured under ObamaCare.) And just what were those able-bodied millions added to Medicaid doing before the Democrats charity?

But, as the astute Krauthammer notes:

There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health-care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Retrenching is better than leaving ObamaCare in place and letting it evolve in the single payer system Obama and Harry Reid wanted to begin with.

Reid, asked on public radio a couple of years ago if the country will eventually work beyond private health insurance, Reid enthusiastically replied, “Yes. Absolutely, yes.”

He was later quoted by the Las Vegas Sun insert in a rare local article: “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever. We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” but he could not get enough votes back then.

As Krauthammer points out, once that happens there will be no going back: “There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.”

13 comments on “Congress should slow the slide down ObamaCare’s slippery slope”

“What the press doesn’t understand is that Obamacare, in practice, has proven to be a disaster, and it’s hurting millions of people. We’ve had three elections that focused on Obamacare repeal, 2010, 2014 and 2016. All three were massive victories for Republicans.”
(And liberals kept reminding us of all the “failed” votes to repeal, even as Republicans were winning state after state and the US House of representatives.)

Despite Cruz’s statement the press does understand that Obamacare has been a disaster, it doesn’t care, it’s just the messenger so there’s no skin off its behind. It’s not really Obama’s program, he didn’t write a word or sentence in it, it was long in coming, even Hillary Clinton’s 1993 attempt was a feint, the proponents were just waiting for someone like Obama to bring it to the surface. The Repubs didn’t vote for it but they also didn’t fight it, no vote is a vote so implicitly they approved it and still approve of it.

“There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health-care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare”.

Yes, Dr. Krauthammer there is a free ride. It’s experienced by political pundits who pretend to be conservative all the while advancing the progressive agenda. Other free riders include the political ruling class who vote themselves a better health care insurance system than they deliver to the American people. And the medical establishment CEOs who would rather have subsidies and regulations that guarantee their bloated bureaucracies and salaries rather than face competition that would inevitably bring down prices.

From the Republican establishment view, it doesn’t much matter whether Ryancare passes or not. Either way they will have gotten what they wanted – government control of health care. If it does not pass, they will blame those Krauthammer calls the GOP hard-liners, AKA conservative, limited government advocates, as obstructionists refusing to play ball and accept the necessary compromises to “fix” the broken system.

It Ryancare does pass, it will not bring down prices and control remains largely with the Sec of HHS to regulate healthcare. Both outcomes continue the flow of campaign contributions and the free ride on the backs of the American taxpayer. And isn’t this what the ruling elites, both Democrats and Republicans, wanted in the first place – their free ride?

The reason no Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it is because it would mean the end of the free ride for the ruling elite.

As Steve and Senator Cruz have pointed out, Republicans gained overwhelming electoral victories since 2010 on the promise of repealing Obamacare. The media can and will spin this debate, and will be aided by so-called conservative columnists. How much clearer can the American people make it – we do not want government controlling our health care!

True market reform would be hard work, but the good Dr. should spend his time explaining this concept instead of advocating for compromise that only advances the progressive agenda and government control.

I get it Barbara. It’s all in the name. Like no wonder the “American Patriot Act” is such a wonderful thing right, I mean, it’s all right there in the name.

And Barbara, the factors used are obviously subjective, but not entirely without some basis. As the article noted, some important ones include:

“Six key variables are then used to explain those happiness scores, according to the report: “income, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on in times of trouble, generosity, freedom and trust, with the latter measured by the absence of corruption in business and government.”

So the authors used “income” “freedom” and “trust” measured by the absence of corruption, all factors you would hope would bias the study toward Western countries which, by and large, have more economic and political freedom. So, as far as this goes, I don’t see any problem with the way the study was structured, unless of course, you have some problem comparing the freedom that exists in this country to that which exists in a more socialized one like Norway? Or say, the income level of a socialist country and this country? Or the level of political corruption?

It’s sad that, this country seems to fall short of the socialized countries especially when using factors this country likes to believe we are superior at.

The most significant thing about the report is the USA has never rated in the top ten.

The next is this report has a 5 year history, the US debut’d at 11 and dropped from there, so the USA under Obama and liberal control of the Congress began off the mark and dropped during the liberal heyday of the Obama era. While moving the country further and further left toward the socialism Patrick claims make so many people so happy….and it is interesting (to say the least) the USA remains the most desired country for people who wish to LEGALLY immigrate.

Well good questions one and all, but not really relevant to the results of the study.

The issue is happiness, not satisfaction, or ambition or movement within economic classes.

And, as the study found, the people in the entire world, who are the happiest, are those in socialist countries, where they are free, have substantial levels of income, and lesser amounts of political corruption, than people in the US who suffer from less the formers, and more of the latter.

Slippery slope arguments are usually without merit, because a slippery slope can be imagined about almost any change. The slippery slope argument about capitalism is that it will lead to anarchy. Do you buy that?

Archives

Archives

Battle Born

4TH ST8

"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact ... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. the requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to ... Democracy virtually extant will insist on becoming palpably extant."